Talk:1996
Eugenics Wars locale *"'' It is possible that the military conflict may have been restricted to the Eastern hemisphere..." You do of course realize that revealed some conflicts in the Eugenics Wars were fought in North America? Last time I checked, that was in the western hemisphere. ;) --From Andoria with Love 23:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC) :I believe you mean [[Africa|North '''Africa']].... --Alan del Beccio 23:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC) ::*ARCHER: "My great grandfather was in North Africa during the Eugenics Wars." FYI, in my family my great grandfather was born 132 years before I was. For Archer that would put his great grandfather at 18 in 1998. Aholland 04:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC) : And how does that fit into this coversation? --Alan del Beccio 04:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC) :: Not terribly well, it appears. :) There have been some discussions elsewhere regarding dates for the Eugenics Wars. The line about Archer's great-grandfather made me do a little math is all. Sorry if it was a bit disjointed and out of context. Aholland 04:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC) *''"My great-grandfather was in North Africa during the Eugenics Wars. His battalion was evacuating civilians from a war zone when they came under attack. There was a school full of children directly between them and the enemy. If his men had returned fire, they might have hit it. So he called the commander on the other side, got him to agree to hold his fire long enough to evacuate the school."'' Indeed you are correct; for some reason, I read it as North America. My goof. That said, I don't see how your great-grandfather's age has anything to do with this. Who said this battle took place in 1998? Huh? Huh? Huh? :P --From Andoria with Love 05:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC) :::I believe Aholland was trying to place a reference for the timeframe of one's great-grandfather's lifetime, however, the difference in generation length between families and cultural cliques makes determining exact dates an improbability -- one family may have a child in their teens or twenties, other families their thirties or forties. However, I think Aholland's calculation places that Archer's great-grandfather could have lived in the late 20th century -- its a piece of guesswork that backs up the facts present in canon. (and nobody actually said any battles took place in '98 -- Aholland was simply reporting the result on his ballpark calculation of the man's age of majority -- who said 98 was a battle? Huh? :) -- Captain M.K. Barteltalk I just read it differently. So I was wrong again. Why you gotta play me like that, Cid? Huh? What's up wit dat? Huh? Huh? ;) --From Andoria with Love 06:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC) Revised timeline? I removed-- with regards to "Phineas Tarbolde, an author from Canopus Planet, writes the sonnet "Nightingale Woman". (TOS: "Where No Man Has Gone Before")"-- the following: *"Originally, according to this episode, the series is set in the late 22nd century with the sonnet being written nearly two hundred years earlier in 1996. When the revised timeline made its first appearance in the Star Trek Chronology, the date for the sonnet's composition is kept with the event now occuring 270 years before the episode." What "revised timeline"? The date of the sonnet was explicit, therefore the background note seems irrelevant. This so-called "revised timeline" was not established by the Star Trek Chronology, it was established by TNG. So that is inaccurate. --Alan del Beccio 07:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC) :With both you and From Andoria with Love riding my back, I don't have far to find pricks.--Airtram3 08:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC) Excuse me? "1996" was an explicit date, "the past couple of centuries" is at best a implicit reference (x2): "couple of" and "centuries", both relatively inexact measures. Consider: :"Although the phrase "a couple of" has been well established in English since before the Renaissance, modern critics have sometimes maintained that "a couple of" is too inexact to be appropriate in formal writing. But the inexactitude of "a couple of" may serve a useful purpose, suggesting that the writer is indifferent to the precise number of items involved. Thus the sentence "She lives only a couple of miles away" implies not only that the distance is short but that its exact measure is unimportant." So I am truly sorry that you refuse to leave this diluted world that takes each and every vague reference as literal, and therefore blames everything on the Chronology, while seemingly forgetting that the Chronology came five years after the premier of The Next Generation. This is not a , so why get pissed off at everyone and call them pricks when someone challenges your point of view? You refuse to participate in conversations or debates that are based on your edits (for example), and when you do, and you don't like the outcome, you give up and delete everything and or call everyone pricks and threaten to leave. Talk about stubborn pride. My point: Why bother adding a statement about a "revised timeline" or "retcon" to a date that was explicitly given? While the rest of the statement I referred to above is obviously vague, it does not directly conflict with, or for that matter, have anything to do with this date. "...its exact measure is unimportant." --Alan del Beccio 17:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC) :How am I supposed to keep up-to-date with everything that is written in regards to what I write when I am not notified? Do you know how much time and effort would be required for me to sift through the recent changes? As for me deleting my entries, wouldn't they be deleted anyway by you or someone like you, so what's the point in accusing me of this when you and others like you do it all the time? (Just as you removed my notes from that article.) FYI, the word is "deluded", not "diluted".--Airtram3 01:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC) Talk pages don't get deleted, they get archived. Same goes with article content. That is when we have these kinds of discussions. They don't get deleted, they get archived, just as I did above...along with an explanation. There is a difference between what you do and what you are discussing. Meanwhile, I bow to your superior spelling abilities. --Alan del Beccio 04:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC) Removed * Popular (non-canon) belief is that the Eugenics Wars were fought and completed by 1996; if so, they seem not to have figured prominently in Los Angeles. It is possible that the military conflict may have been restricted to the Eastern hemisphere, and/or that the war itself did not begin until ''after Khan and his followers left Earth. Some explain the failure of anyone to mention the war by suggesting that "Future's End" takes place in an alternate timeline; however, the failure of the Voyager crew to discuss the war might then require that they, too, are in a different timeline.'' * According to the writers, they did not care to mention the Eugenics Wars in the episodes in order to accommodate the plot devised. The first is essentially speculation, the second uncited, but likely from a solid source, just needs a ref. --Alan 20:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)